Irrational meter - why the mark of a triplet in 4 half notes
Can someone please explain to me why the mark of a triplet in this 4 half notes? I understood how to play it but from what i read you can only write triplets on 3 notes like 3 eighths 3 quarters etc...
See picture
notation time-signatures
edited 2 days ago
guidot
5,8671035
asked 2 days ago
LoveIsHereLoveIsHere
559314
|
show 5 more comments
Can someone please explain to me why the mark of a triplet in this 4 half notes? I understood how to play it but from what i read you can only write triplets on 3 notes like 3 eighths 3 quarters etc...
See picture
notation time-signatures
edited 2 days ago
guidot
5,8671035
asked 2 days ago
LoveIsHereLoveIsHere
559314
2
There are whole, half, quarter etc. notes, but nothing that shows third. So, to me, the 4/3 time signature is somewhat pointless, as to show 'proper' notes, they need to have the 'triplet' sign. I reckon it could be written out in standard form and make more sense.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
Because there is no notehead shape that alone depicts 1/3 note. there's 1/2, 1/4,1/8, but no 1/3. Same reason as triplets themselves.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
I'm fairly certain that there are better ways to show what needs playing rather than use irrational meters. Judging by the question, I'm not alone.
– Tim
2 days ago
3
@Artelius -- a time signature is not a fraction, and irrational time signature has an entirely different meaning than irrational number.
– David Bowling
2 days ago
1
My comment was tongue in cheek. Music and mathematics go hand in hand, though, and I think this is somewhat of an unfortunate (dare I say, irrational?) terminology. Also, in my view a time signature is a fraction (but it is not just a fraction). As a fraction it indicates how many whole notes fit in a bar. Of course it has other, perhaps more important meanings.
– Artelius
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
Can someone please explain to me why the mark of a triplet in this 4 half notes? I understood how to play it but from what i read you can only write triplets on 3 notes like 3 eighths 3 quarters etc...
See picture
notation time-signatures
edited 2 days ago
guidot
5,8671035
asked 2 days ago
LoveIsHereLoveIsHere
559314
Can someone please explain to me why the mark of a triplet in this 4 half notes? I understood how to play it but from what i read you can only write triplets on 3 notes like 3 eighths 3 quarters etc...
See picture
notation time-signatures
notation time-signatures
edited 2 days ago
guidot
5,8671035
asked 2 days ago
LoveIsHereLoveIsHere
559314
edited 2 days ago
guidot
5,8671035
asked 2 days ago
LoveIsHereLoveIsHere
559314
edited 2 days ago
guidot
5,8671035
edited 2 days ago
guidot
5,8671035
edited 2 days ago
guidot
5,8671035
5,8671035
asked 2 days ago
LoveIsHereLoveIsHere
559314
asked 2 days ago
LoveIsHereLoveIsHere
559314
asked 2 days ago
LoveIsHereLoveIsHere
559314
559314
2
There are whole, half, quarter etc. notes, but nothing that shows third. So, to me, the 4/3 time signature is somewhat pointless, as to show 'proper' notes, they need to have the 'triplet' sign. I reckon it could be written out in standard form and make more sense.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
Because there is no notehead shape that alone depicts 1/3 note. there's 1/2, 1/4,1/8, but no 1/3. Same reason as triplets themselves.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
I'm fairly certain that there are better ways to show what needs playing rather than use irrational meters. Judging by the question, I'm not alone.
– Tim
2 days ago
3
@Artelius -- a time signature is not a fraction, and irrational time signature has an entirely different meaning than irrational number.
– David Bowling
2 days ago
1
My comment was tongue in cheek. Music and mathematics go hand in hand, though, and I think this is somewhat of an unfortunate (dare I say, irrational?) terminology. Also, in my view a time signature is a fraction (but it is not just a fraction). As a fraction it indicates how many whole notes fit in a bar. Of course it has other, perhaps more important meanings.
– Artelius
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
2
There are whole, half, quarter etc. notes, but nothing that shows third. So, to me, the 4/3 time signature is somewhat pointless, as to show 'proper' notes, they need to have the 'triplet' sign. I reckon it could be written out in standard form and make more sense.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
Because there is no notehead shape that alone depicts 1/3 note. there's 1/2, 1/4,1/8, but no 1/3. Same reason as triplets themselves.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
I'm fairly certain that there are better ways to show what needs playing rather than use irrational meters. Judging by the question, I'm not alone.
– Tim
2 days ago
3
@Artelius -- a time signature is not a fraction, and irrational time signature has an entirely different meaning than irrational number.
– David Bowling
2 days ago
1
My comment was tongue in cheek. Music and mathematics go hand in hand, though, and I think this is somewhat of an unfortunate (dare I say, irrational?) terminology. Also, in my view a time signature is a fraction (but it is not just a fraction). As a fraction it indicates how many whole notes fit in a bar. Of course it has other, perhaps more important meanings.
– Artelius
2 days ago
2
2
There are whole, half, quarter etc. notes, but nothing that shows third. So, to me, the 4/3 time signature is somewhat pointless, as to show 'proper' notes, they need to have the 'triplet' sign. I reckon it could be written out in standard form and make more sense.
– Tim
2 days ago
There are whole, half, quarter etc. notes, but nothing that shows third. So, to me, the 4/3 time signature is somewhat pointless, as to show 'proper' notes, they need to have the 'triplet' sign. I reckon it could be written out in standard form and make more sense.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
1
Because there is no notehead shape that alone depicts 1/3 note. there's 1/2, 1/4,1/8, but no 1/3. Same reason as triplets themselves.
– Tim
2 days ago
Because there is no notehead shape that alone depicts 1/3 note. there's 1/2, 1/4,1/8, but no 1/3. Same reason as triplets themselves.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
1
I'm fairly certain that there are better ways to show what needs playing rather than use irrational meters. Judging by the question, I'm not alone.
– Tim
2 days ago
I'm fairly certain that there are better ways to show what needs playing rather than use irrational meters. Judging by the question, I'm not alone.
– Tim
2 days ago
3
3
@Artelius -- a time signature is not a fraction, and irrational time signature has an entirely different meaning than irrational number.
– David Bowling
2 days ago
@Artelius -- a time signature is not a fraction, and irrational time signature has an entirely different meaning than irrational number.
– David Bowling
2 days ago
1
1
My comment was tongue in cheek. Music and mathematics go hand in hand, though, and I think this is somewhat of an unfortunate (dare I say, irrational?) terminology. Also, in my view a time signature is a fraction (but it is not just a fraction). As a fraction it indicates how many whole notes fit in a bar. Of course it has other, perhaps more important meanings.
– Artelius
2 days ago
My comment was tongue in cheek. Music and mathematics go hand in hand, though, and I think this is somewhat of an unfortunate (dare I say, irrational?) terminology. Also, in my view a time signature is a fraction (but it is not just a fraction). As a fraction it indicates how many whole notes fit in a bar. Of course it has other, perhaps more important meanings.
– Artelius
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The problem is, that tuplet just means some note length modification takes place. Mathematically you require a standard fraction with numerator and denominator and there seem to be different opinions which of those to put into the tuplet bracket.
Wikipedia suggest under Tuplet Notation a full fraction representation in the form 2:3 for exotic cases, but I have never seen one.
So counting the note values and looking at the current time signature may be necessary for resolution.
answered 2 days ago
guidotguidot
5,8671035
add a comment |
To answer your last question: the use of 'triplet' indicator is allowable for any length note. It tells you to play the three marked notes so that each takes up 1/3 the meter-time that would have normally been covered by two of the notes in question. Thus, in quarter time meter, a one-beat triplet is written with eighth notes (normally two per quarter note), a two-beat triplet is written with quarter notes, etc.
The use of anything other than 2,4,8,16 as the denominator of the designated meter is highly discouraged, especially among those of us who have to perform the piece.
answered 2 days ago
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
9,00121330
So if it was 6/5 time signature and there were 5 half notes i would but the number 5 benith the notes? Even if it does not makes sense :-)?
– LoveIsHere
2 days ago
“highly discouraged” – that seems a bit of a fogyish attitude, no? Normal odd time signatures like 5/4 were probably also highly discouraged at some point, but I'd argue that it's very much a good thing that they eventually become widespread for where it makes sense. Sure you could denote that all in 4/4 with silly incompletely meters, but with a 5/4 signature it can get more directly to the musical intention. I don't see why that would be fundamentally different with irrational signatures.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
@leftaroundabout It is different because there are no symbols for notes that have anything other than 2^(-k) duration. Thus no point in an N/3 time signature.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
Um, yes there are such symbols: tuplets.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
Ummm, no, that is a deviation from the actual note symbol which requires the "3" indicator. Why would you write 4/3 time and then go ahead and write some half-notes with a "3" over them? Other than composer-wanking, it serves no purpose.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "240"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82049%2firrational-meter-why-the-mark-of-a-triplet-in-4-half-notes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The problem is, that tuplet just means some note length modification takes place. Mathematically you require a standard fraction with numerator and denominator and there seem to be different opinions which of those to put into the tuplet bracket.
Wikipedia suggest under Tuplet Notation a full fraction representation in the form 2:3 for exotic cases, but I have never seen one.
So counting the note values and looking at the current time signature may be necessary for resolution.
answered 2 days ago
guidotguidot
5,8671035
add a comment |
The problem is, that tuplet just means some note length modification takes place. Mathematically you require a standard fraction with numerator and denominator and there seem to be different opinions which of those to put into the tuplet bracket.
Wikipedia suggest under Tuplet Notation a full fraction representation in the form 2:3 for exotic cases, but I have never seen one.
So counting the note values and looking at the current time signature may be necessary for resolution.
answered 2 days ago
guidotguidot
5,8671035
add a comment |
The problem is, that tuplet just means some note length modification takes place. Mathematically you require a standard fraction with numerator and denominator and there seem to be different opinions which of those to put into the tuplet bracket.
Wikipedia suggest under Tuplet Notation a full fraction representation in the form 2:3 for exotic cases, but I have never seen one.
So counting the note values and looking at the current time signature may be necessary for resolution.
answered 2 days ago
guidotguidot
5,8671035
The problem is, that tuplet just means some note length modification takes place. Mathematically you require a standard fraction with numerator and denominator and there seem to be different opinions which of those to put into the tuplet bracket.
Wikipedia suggest under Tuplet Notation a full fraction representation in the form 2:3 for exotic cases, but I have never seen one.
So counting the note values and looking at the current time signature may be necessary for resolution.
answered 2 days ago
guidotguidot
5,8671035
answered 2 days ago
guidotguidot
5,8671035
answered 2 days ago
guidotguidot
5,8671035
answered 2 days ago
guidotguidot
5,8671035
5,8671035
add a comment |
add a comment |
To answer your last question: the use of 'triplet' indicator is allowable for any length note. It tells you to play the three marked notes so that each takes up 1/3 the meter-time that would have normally been covered by two of the notes in question. Thus, in quarter time meter, a one-beat triplet is written with eighth notes (normally two per quarter note), a two-beat triplet is written with quarter notes, etc.
The use of anything other than 2,4,8,16 as the denominator of the designated meter is highly discouraged, especially among those of us who have to perform the piece.
answered 2 days ago
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
9,00121330
So if it was 6/5 time signature and there were 5 half notes i would but the number 5 benith the notes? Even if it does not makes sense :-)?
– LoveIsHere
2 days ago
“highly discouraged” – that seems a bit of a fogyish attitude, no? Normal odd time signatures like 5/4 were probably also highly discouraged at some point, but I'd argue that it's very much a good thing that they eventually become widespread for where it makes sense. Sure you could denote that all in 4/4 with silly incompletely meters, but with a 5/4 signature it can get more directly to the musical intention. I don't see why that would be fundamentally different with irrational signatures.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
@leftaroundabout It is different because there are no symbols for notes that have anything other than 2^(-k) duration. Thus no point in an N/3 time signature.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
Um, yes there are such symbols: tuplets.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
Ummm, no, that is a deviation from the actual note symbol which requires the "3" indicator. Why would you write 4/3 time and then go ahead and write some half-notes with a "3" over them? Other than composer-wanking, it serves no purpose.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
To answer your last question: the use of 'triplet' indicator is allowable for any length note. It tells you to play the three marked notes so that each takes up 1/3 the meter-time that would have normally been covered by two of the notes in question. Thus, in quarter time meter, a one-beat triplet is written with eighth notes (normally two per quarter note), a two-beat triplet is written with quarter notes, etc.
The use of anything other than 2,4,8,16 as the denominator of the designated meter is highly discouraged, especially among those of us who have to perform the piece.
answered 2 days ago
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
9,00121330
So if it was 6/5 time signature and there were 5 half notes i would but the number 5 benith the notes? Even if it does not makes sense :-)?
– LoveIsHere
2 days ago
“highly discouraged” – that seems a bit of a fogyish attitude, no? Normal odd time signatures like 5/4 were probably also highly discouraged at some point, but I'd argue that it's very much a good thing that they eventually become widespread for where it makes sense. Sure you could denote that all in 4/4 with silly incompletely meters, but with a 5/4 signature it can get more directly to the musical intention. I don't see why that would be fundamentally different with irrational signatures.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
@leftaroundabout It is different because there are no symbols for notes that have anything other than 2^(-k) duration. Thus no point in an N/3 time signature.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
Um, yes there are such symbols: tuplets.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
Ummm, no, that is a deviation from the actual note symbol which requires the "3" indicator. Why would you write 4/3 time and then go ahead and write some half-notes with a "3" over them? Other than composer-wanking, it serves no purpose.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
To answer your last question: the use of 'triplet' indicator is allowable for any length note. It tells you to play the three marked notes so that each takes up 1/3 the meter-time that would have normally been covered by two of the notes in question. Thus, in quarter time meter, a one-beat triplet is written with eighth notes (normally two per quarter note), a two-beat triplet is written with quarter notes, etc.
The use of anything other than 2,4,8,16 as the denominator of the designated meter is highly discouraged, especially among those of us who have to perform the piece.
answered 2 days ago
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
9,00121330
To answer your last question: the use of 'triplet' indicator is allowable for any length note. It tells you to play the three marked notes so that each takes up 1/3 the meter-time that would have normally been covered by two of the notes in question. Thus, in quarter time meter, a one-beat triplet is written with eighth notes (normally two per quarter note), a two-beat triplet is written with quarter notes, etc.
The use of anything other than 2,4,8,16 as the denominator of the designated meter is highly discouraged, especially among those of us who have to perform the piece.
answered 2 days ago
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
9,00121330
answered 2 days ago
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
9,00121330
answered 2 days ago
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
9,00121330
answered 2 days ago
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
9,00121330
9,00121330
So if it was 6/5 time signature and there were 5 half notes i would but the number 5 benith the notes? Even if it does not makes sense :-)?
– LoveIsHere
2 days ago
“highly discouraged” – that seems a bit of a fogyish attitude, no? Normal odd time signatures like 5/4 were probably also highly discouraged at some point, but I'd argue that it's very much a good thing that they eventually become widespread for where it makes sense. Sure you could denote that all in 4/4 with silly incompletely meters, but with a 5/4 signature it can get more directly to the musical intention. I don't see why that would be fundamentally different with irrational signatures.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
@leftaroundabout It is different because there are no symbols for notes that have anything other than 2^(-k) duration. Thus no point in an N/3 time signature.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
Um, yes there are such symbols: tuplets.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
Ummm, no, that is a deviation from the actual note symbol which requires the "3" indicator. Why would you write 4/3 time and then go ahead and write some half-notes with a "3" over them? Other than composer-wanking, it serves no purpose.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
So if it was 6/5 time signature and there were 5 half notes i would but the number 5 benith the notes? Even if it does not makes sense :-)?
– LoveIsHere
2 days ago
“highly discouraged” – that seems a bit of a fogyish attitude, no? Normal odd time signatures like 5/4 were probably also highly discouraged at some point, but I'd argue that it's very much a good thing that they eventually become widespread for where it makes sense. Sure you could denote that all in 4/4 with silly incompletely meters, but with a 5/4 signature it can get more directly to the musical intention. I don't see why that would be fundamentally different with irrational signatures.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
@leftaroundabout It is different because there are no symbols for notes that have anything other than 2^(-k) duration. Thus no point in an N/3 time signature.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
Um, yes there are such symbols: tuplets.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
Ummm, no, that is a deviation from the actual note symbol which requires the "3" indicator. Why would you write 4/3 time and then go ahead and write some half-notes with a "3" over them? Other than composer-wanking, it serves no purpose.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
So if it was 6/5 time signature and there were 5 half notes i would but the number 5 benith the notes? Even if it does not makes sense :-)?
– LoveIsHere
2 days ago
So if it was 6/5 time signature and there were 5 half notes i would but the number 5 benith the notes? Even if it does not makes sense :-)?
– LoveIsHere
2 days ago
“highly discouraged” – that seems a bit of a fogyish attitude, no? Normal odd time signatures like 5/4 were probably also highly discouraged at some point, but I'd argue that it's very much a good thing that they eventually become widespread for where it makes sense. Sure you could denote that all in 4/4 with silly incompletely meters, but with a 5/4 signature it can get more directly to the musical intention. I don't see why that would be fundamentally different with irrational signatures.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
“highly discouraged” – that seems a bit of a fogyish attitude, no? Normal odd time signatures like 5/4 were probably also highly discouraged at some point, but I'd argue that it's very much a good thing that they eventually become widespread for where it makes sense. Sure you could denote that all in 4/4 with silly incompletely meters, but with a 5/4 signature it can get more directly to the musical intention. I don't see why that would be fundamentally different with irrational signatures.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
@leftaroundabout It is different because there are no symbols for notes that have anything other than 2^(-k) duration. Thus no point in an N/3 time signature.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
@leftaroundabout It is different because there are no symbols for notes that have anything other than 2^(-k) duration. Thus no point in an N/3 time signature.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
Um, yes there are such symbols: tuplets.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
Um, yes there are such symbols: tuplets.
– leftaroundabout
2 days ago
Ummm, no, that is a deviation from the actual note symbol which requires the "3" indicator. Why would you write 4/3 time and then go ahead and write some half-notes with a "3" over them? Other than composer-wanking, it serves no purpose.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
Ummm, no, that is a deviation from the actual note symbol which requires the "3" indicator. Why would you write 4/3 time and then go ahead and write some half-notes with a "3" over them? Other than composer-wanking, it serves no purpose.
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82049%2firrational-meter-why-the-mark-of-a-triplet-in-4-half-notes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
There are whole, half, quarter etc. notes, but nothing that shows third. So, to me, the 4/3 time signature is somewhat pointless, as to show 'proper' notes, they need to have the 'triplet' sign. I reckon it could be written out in standard form and make more sense.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
Because there is no notehead shape that alone depicts 1/3 note. there's 1/2, 1/4,1/8, but no 1/3. Same reason as triplets themselves.
– Tim
2 days ago
1
I'm fairly certain that there are better ways to show what needs playing rather than use irrational meters. Judging by the question, I'm not alone.
– Tim
2 days ago
3
@Artelius -- a time signature is not a fraction, and irrational time signature has an entirely different meaning than irrational number.
– David Bowling
2 days ago
1
My comment was tongue in cheek. Music and mathematics go hand in hand, though, and I think this is somewhat of an unfortunate (dare I say, irrational?) terminology. Also, in my view a time signature is a fraction (but it is not just a fraction). As a fraction it indicates how many whole notes fit in a bar. Of course it has other, perhaps more important meanings.
– Artelius
2 days ago